My memory of what happened is a little different. You joined his forum just so you could call him an idiot. You claimed it was impossible to get logged intercooler temps that were lower than the starting temps. You claimed his whole testing was complete BS because you didnt understand how it was possible for logged temps to actually be lower than starting temps. nisie has left the data as it was collected. They deleted your posts. I joined the board just to show how it was actually possible for an intercooler to actually lower the temp of the starting point. They deleted my posts as well. I still have pictures of the proof. here is what I had posted as proof. I did this simple experiment to show the effects of water evaporating.

1. two probes t1 and t2 at air conditioned room temperature. 77.9 and 77.4
2. t1 temp on my tongue after a few seconds. water temp of my tongue is higher than room temp. 97.5 and 78 (room temp)
3. two probes t1 and t2 after a few seconds of removing t1 probe from my mouth. as the water evaporates from surface of probe it removes temperature.

Notice t1 temp is 4.7 degress lower than room temp. this is possible because the latent heat of evaporation lowers the surface temp as the water evaporates. the nisei intercooler testing was done in the evening when moisture was collecting on the IC core before making a pull. as that moisture evaporated from ts surface the IC temp was lower than its starting temp . even though hot turbo outlet air was flowing through the core. the heat being pulled off the outside of core was simply greater than the amount of heat that was being added to the inside of core. thus the reason for his results.

 

Makes a little more sense to use the most efficient intercooler possible. Guess if some want to use the ebay unit and it fits their budget then thats what they will do. In a lot of cases the ebay units won't be much better if at all over stock. Now if the ebay unit was larger than the original AMS knock off units, for example. Perhaps they will absorb for heat. But wouldn't it make more sense to use a real core in the first place? Nah, wouldn't want to do that.

Anyone can test items and most will end up with similar results. The information is out there for people to make informed decisions. Instead of argueing just let people do whatever they so chose. I am glad I have had the chance to test so many parts on the EVOs. Guess thats why for a given turbo size a few of my cars are still making more power than cars with larger builds.

No big deal.

 

I'm not sure I understand. On the nisei test your saying that the late evening moisture was present which helped to evaporate heat, correct ? Isn't that the same thing as spraying the intercooler with water prior to doing pulls? Wouldn't that make comparison testing done on an intercooler invalid? If the nisei i/c had moisture on it to help absorb radiant heat and the bushur i/c did not, doesn't that change the control subject?

Doesn't that give the Bushur core a disadvantage starting at a higher temp and not having vapor helping it act more efficiently as a heat sink? I mean if the dry aluminum is already warmer vs the vapor cooled one being already cooler, or am I missing something?

 

Both coolers were tested at night. the buschur core has less surface area so it did not drop the temp as much as nisei core. The testing clearly showed the nesei core kicking butt on the buschur core. but it wasnt a fair test because nisei core was a larger core than the buschur core.

My point is it is not smart or fair to test a smaller core against a larger one. All the e-bay core testing has been just that. test a smaller e-bay core against a venders more expensive but larger core. then call all e-bay cores crap because of the results. brilliant.

in short some of the ebay cores are just as good as the vender cores at 1/5th the price. most of the e-bay cores are crap compared to a good vender core.

 

I understand both were tested at night, if the timestamps were right, late at night lol, but what i don't understand is why (it seems anyway) that they would conduct that test and make it seem like everything else was equal.

Regardless of the difference in size; which will make a difference; but even that aside it seems the Nisei i/c was pre-cooled vs the bushur i/c judging by the outlet temp vs ambient temp.

How does the CX racing core compare in size to the 4" Bushur core or 4" AMS cores? If an accurate comparison test was done between those, would a size factor come up as making the test invalid?

 

the Crxracing core in question is 24"x12"x4" giving it 1152"cu im not sure on the buschur 4" core, i believe its right around 1200"cu. there is another Cxracing intercooler that has a 24"x18"x4" core that is 1728"cu.

 

You know, I'm either getting old or just tired of all the BS. My energy to argue is pretty low.

Your memory of what happend with Nisei is about right. My point was you treated Doug like a douche in your post on the previous page and your comment about what may have happened on HBF is just more BS.

Your testing with the temp probe is interesting, let me know how it's possible to lick a temp probe that is inside of an intercooler............the small amount of moisture (unless of course it was raining) on the outside of the intercooler is not going to have much effect on a probe that is inside the intercooler. Let's not argue about it, that is my opinion and obviously you have yours after licking your probe.

Also, when I did the FMIC testing I tested the AMS knock off and the largest Ebay intercooler offered at the time, which was the 24x12x4" if my memory serves me. It got hot too but made good power for one pull.

 

I dont know whats so hard to understand about the probe test. It represents what happens on the exterior surface of an intercooler. Only difference is an intercooler has about 100,000 times more surface area than the tip of the probe. The surface temp of the core would be lower than ambient as the moisture evaporates. that means the inside surface of core would be lower as well.

for the first three gears the amount of heat added to inside of core from turbo was less than the amount of heat being removed from the outside. thus a negative temp was recorded.

I guess you have never played with a water to air I/C where ice is use to cool the core. I have seen 65 degrees intake temps at the end of 1/4 mile in 90 degree weather. Same thing happened in the nesei tests. just at a much smaller scale.

 

Ok, like I said, no energy left.....whatever you want to post is fine with me.

 

Dave im not bashing your test here as setups are differnt but i just logged a maf temp of 37deg and air temp of 35deg, so the cxracing 31"x12"x4" intercooler cooled the air 2deg lower than it was at the maf. This is on a ~300hp 350tq car 18-19psi, outside. That was the temps at the end of a 3rd gear pull. Yes the intercooler size is huge for the hp that the car is making which plays a big role in the test.

 

You can't log temps at the MAF.................sheesh. IT has nothing to do with the intercooler. Please stop the madness.

 

Why not? <----Im being serious. Then what temps were you compairing, outside/inside air temp and intake manifold air temp?

 

You see, this is the problem with trying to discuss on the internet, the input you get.....

The MAF measures air temp at the MAF which is at your air filter. We are talking about before and after temps of the intercooler.

 

true ^

 

I still think that very few products not only ebay products are not R&D tested. The costs of some products are so cheap that its impossible to have any development done.